Apple backtracks on Safari 4.0 tabs on top, ZFS - Page 4

I'd just like to register my disappointment with both the tab change and the ZFS disappearance.

Whether or not it clashed with Apple's own interface guidelines, I was enjoying the top tabs in the Safari beta. I'm not always delighted with window management on OS X, and I found the top tabs put open sites fewer clicks away, while nicely conserving screen real estate.

Obviously the Safari change was simply a user interface decision, and probably down to consistency. The issue of making ZFS enterprise-ready is a good deal more complex.

Happily, http://zfs.macosforge.org already provides working ZFS basics for Mac OS, so we're not out in the cold. However I am looking forward to using Apple's own tools for managing ZFS storage. It obviously shouldn't be rushed, but I do wish it were a priority for Apple.

I really liked the tabs on top. The issues with them that people have described never once happened to me. I was hoping to see them become part of the interface guidelines going forward and appear in many more places across the OS and third party apps..

Well, this, pardon me, sucks bigtime. Last year it sounded as if we'd have stable ZFS on Snow Leopard (client). Now I'm not so sure anymore.

It's semi-BS that ZFS isn't worth it without multiple disks. You get checksumming, know exactly what files are broken if any, built-in compression, and SNAPSHOTS. I was planning on taking frequent snapshots and using zfs send | recv to my (also planned) FreeBSD server to take frequent snapshots and backups of my home partition.

Two Thoughts: 1.) ZFS was hot at Apple 3 years ago. However, the guy who was driving it is not with Apple anymore! Was it too difficult to switchover on a consumer product or did Apple lose interest to do it? (For whatever reason..)
2.) ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!

Bummer about losing tabs on top, that was the only feature that was a noticable improvement to me.

Sure some people don't like it - so make it a preference. And if it was tweaky, then fix the issues7, don't just throw it away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WorldNet

Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).

I'm still running the beta (no reboot yet) but I still have that button, it was just moved to the right side of the address bar. One problem I do have is that command period no longer stops loading a page. Still listed in the menu, not sure why it no longer works.

I'm just contemplating out loud a little here - but in the end, ZFS could still ship in Snow Leopard or at a later date. Oracle's recent aquisition of Sun included a LOT of technology, from java to sparc chips to ZFS - there's THOUSANDS of patents that just changed hands. M&A activities list this usually just wind up delaying things even if there's no strategic barrier to market.

Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).

NEVER take away a feature that has been there for the users to get used to.

It appears to the right of the url once the page has loaded. While the page is loading, it turns into an X for "stop loading." So, it's been moved/redesigned, not gone. I gather by all the posts about reloading via the menu that some people have not picked up on this.

<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>

Reallly? How?

<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>

No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?

<b>Apple was so upside-down in their Safari 4 priorities that they forgot to keep the Reload/Stop Loading button (those idjits!).</b>

You *do* know that the reload button is there in the right edge of the address bar.

<b>ZFS on a Mac means your data is protected and you would never run out of disk space. So no need for a Drobo on a Mac!</b>

No, it really doesn't.

It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.

For example:

1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?

With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?

2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?

3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?

4) ZFS is expensive for small files.

5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.

B<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>

Reallly? How?

<b>Tabs on top was really nice. Especially for 1024x600 displays. You know what I mean.</b>

No. We really don't. What Mac in the last 5 years had a 600 pixel height display?

Useful to me with a 13 MB. I need all vertical screen real estate I can get. Yes, I keep my Dock on the side for this very reason. Windows has Safari and many netbooks, which the 600px height, run Windows AND Mac OS X. I have not updated Safari from the beta simply because the option is no longer available to me. The ones that prefer the feature are not stating that it should be default or the only option, but simply that it should be an option as many not only like it, but prefer it.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Although ZFS has been around for almost five years at Sun, sometimes it's
still treated as a research project.

E.g. to answer (real or perceived) threats from storage competitors like NetApp,
Sun is now playing with de-duplication, a marketing checkbox item for some,
but for others like ZFS principal Jeff Bonwick a thing to get right (i.e. done at the
block level). There is still an unresolved Sun/NetApp patent lawsuit which
may be taking Apple hostage, even though (old) Sun indemnifies ZFS users
against patent trolls.

As well, others are still experimenting with checksum methods, not only for
various time/space tradeoffs but to address potential mathematical flaws in
the mappings. Apple would have to carry around all the experimental baggage
for the sake of compatibility if they rolled it out now.

Other bits: compression methods are overrated since the stuff taking up the
most space (video, photos, and audio) are already compressed. Further, Apple
may still be working on an in-place HFS+ to ZFS converter for the masses, now
made more complicated by new choices.

Lastly, I always (mistakenly) thought that Apple was going to expand into enterprise
server land via purchase of Sun, a make-vs.-buy decision which they could have
done with a fraction of their cash horde. Now we've seen that Sun's customer lists
are more valuable to Oracle than others, and that Apple has minimized the use
of Java for their gear. Apple remains the highest-volume shipper of Unix.
To me, it is amazing to see them do this via clever layering to keep their goodies
from disturbing the various NIH-syndrome components they utilize.

Thank you, tidbits or not this was valuable information. I assume then that you think that the takeover by Oracle is not the reason for dropping all mention of ZFS in SL?

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider.It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.

I'm sorry that AppleInsider elected to lump together a minor UI issue regarding Safari tabs to the apparent cancellation of ZFS support. I know passions can run high about whether tabs are at the top or bottom, but in the big scope of things, that just does not compare in magnitude to the loss of ZFS.

Completely agree. ZFS on SL Server was progressing very well according to the SourceForge discussions.

The reason for deleting all mention of it simply cannot be that it isn't ready even as an option. Some Mac users are using it right now. So whatever has happened I would guess that it has to do with licensing issues, and Oracle.

ZFS is a huge thing for the Mac and trying to talk it down as something not really needed is just absurd. Multiple drives and Terabyte drives are common now. To have a better file system as standard in two years time a replacement needs to be made an option now. A file system isn't icing on the cake it is bread and butter. Testing it means getting it out there to greater numbers of users.

This is the worst Mac news that I have heard in months.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider.It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.

It's been in the pre-release builds of 10.6 (Snow Leopard) OS X Server for months and had been touted as a feature with speculation that it would migrate into the client OS in 10.7. Many of us have been waiting for it for over two years when the first versions started showing up in Leopard.

I've never tried it. I'm just an ignorant yahoo who gets all worked up about feature/benefit lists and buzzwords on web pages.

Oh, wait... That's not right. Now I remember. I've used ZFS under OpenSolaris to get familiar with the technology, concepts, and administration. I've read whitepapers from Sun on it, technical articles on it, and seen many of the Sun presentations and videos on the technology. I've been researching what it would take, cost-wise, to put together an OpenSolaris, hot-swappable, ZFS external array of SATA drives that ran over gigabit Ethernet. It's all come back to me now.

Perhaps you could work on reducing the condescension in your posts and I could try to back off on the sarcasm in my replies. Deal?

You took the words out of my mouth.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider.It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.

It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.

LOL And you know this how?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

For example:

1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?

With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?

2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?

3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?

4) ZFS is expensive for small files.

5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.

I have certainly read Drew Thaler's opinion in multiple places now I assume that that is you and have grown tired of the tone of know-it-all condescension. Particularly when he just resolutely fails to engage with those who use ZFS on a daily basis and have nothing but praise for it.

Maybe clueless bloggers have taken a page from the book of those clueless journalists that you mention. I wouldn't know I stopped reading either long ago.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider.It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.

Oh man, big step backwards - hack will come soon I'm sure. Keeping the beta as long as possible. Stop reload should have been located where the + buton was. Wish they would use tab on top for Finder too.

It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation."

I know far more about it than you do. So do many other people. So perhaps you should back off rather than paraphrasing stuff you read on a blog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?

And Time Machine does not? Please! When terabyte hard drives can be had for $80, most of us are not too concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?

Yes. I have a Mac Pro with 4.3TB of storage. You worry about your systems and I'll take care of mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?

Did you know that I have 8 Xeon CPU cores running at 2.8ghz -- so I don't care? Do you know that others are much more concerned with data integrity rather than speed? Frankly, the average modern Mac CPU spends most of its time twiddling its thumbs now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?

Did you know that I have 16GB of ECC RAM -- so I don't care? Again, many of us are fully aware of the requirements and overhead and

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

4) ZFS is expensive for small files.

Then that does it. To hell with data integrity, fault tolerance, and the ability to expand a storage pool. Seriously, though, that's a weak criticism now, given the expansion of average file sizes coupled with the plummeting price of storage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.

I've got four SATA bays in my Mac Pro. I don't find myself opening the cabinet and yanking out drives very frequently.

That you do not recognize the seriousness of the loss of ZFS and the real-world benefits that so many would have realized, is a poor reflection on you -- not on the people you're addressing so condescendingly.

I tried tabs on top for a few days. I drag the window quite often and didn't like the delay in finding a place for my cursor to drag. With the tabs back down the below, dragging the window returns back to effortless and intuitive (for me).

I really loved the tabs on top, it made perfect sense. I can have up to 10 tabs open at the same and the top version made it much faster in terms of workflow. I can only hope that someone at Apple is reading this thread and make it an option in preferences.

I know far more about it than you do. So do many other people. So perhaps you should back off rather than paraphrasing stuff you read on a blog.

And Time Machine does not? Please! When terabyte hard drives can be had for $80, most of us are not too concerned.

Yes. I have a Mac Pro with 4.3TB of storage. You worry about your systems and I'll take care of mine.

Did you know that I have 8 Xeon CPU cores running at 2.8ghz -- so I don't care? Do you know that others are much more concerned with data integrity rather than speed? Frankly, the average modern Mac CPU spends most of its time twiddling its thumbs now.

Did you know that I have 16GB of ECC RAM -- so I don't care? Again, many of us are fully aware of the requirements and overhead and

Then that does it. To hell with data integrity, fault tolerance, and the ability to expand a storage pool. Seriously, though, that's a weak criticism now, given the expansion of average file sizes coupled with the plummeting price of storage.

I've got four SATA bays in my Mac Pro. I don't find myself opening the cabinet and yanking out drives very frequently.

That you do not recognize the seriousness of the loss of ZFS and the real-world benefits that so many would have realized, is a poor reflection on you -- not on the people you're addressing so condescendingly.

Agreed.

Who the hell wants ZFS on a laptop when it's designed for Servers and Workstations?

I'd love to have pools of drive space on my servers to then use my laptop to remotely access and get at my work while I keep my laptop lean.

It's incredible, but 100% of the comments in this threads are from people that know almost nothing about ZFS, or have only causally used it in some system. Most of them drool over "features" advertised by clueless journalists that know nothing about the actual implementation.

For example:

1) Do you know that ZFS (especially snapshots) CONSUMES DISK SPACE LIKE CRAZY?

With over 50% of Mac users on laptops (with only one drive and maybe an external hd), can you really afford to have a hd hungry filesystem?

2) Do you know that ZFS is pretty CPU intensive?

3) Do you know that ZFS needs *A LOT OF MEMORY* and can crash when it runs out?

4) ZFS is expensive for small files.

5) Most of the benefits with pools, unified storage et al means you have to KEEP ALL THE POOL DRIVES connected to use the filesystem, not just plug it when you want it.

What the fuck? First off, I take the first paragraph as a huge insult, having used it for quite a while and, even if in small parts, have helped debug it in FreeBSD. I've read white papers, presentations, set up several types of pools, read kernel code, etc etc. I'm don't know "almost nothing" about ZFS. Do YOU even know what the SPA and DMU layers do?

1) No, I didn't, actually! Unless you delete files like crazy, they don't consume disk space like crazy, since they share all the blocks with the original filesystem until changes occur.
Did YOU know that you can *remove* snapshots if they get too big? It's true!

2) No, not that either. Don't use compression and it's not very CPU intensive at all, at least not when using the default fletcher2 checksum algorithm. Switch to SHA256 and you have only yourself to blame.

3) Again, no. This is mostly/only true on FreeBSD, and you can easily tweak your way around it (and then again, it's mostly/completely solved now on >2GB RAM systems - I'm sure Apple are competent enough to auto-tweak it for systems with less RAM than that).

4) With variable block and stripe sizes? Source, please.

5) No shit, sherlock. How does this differ from other RAID0/RAID5/RAID6 or even JBOD solutions? Use one pool per disk if you for some wacky reason remove them on a regular basis. Or use RAIDZ2 and live with the fact that you've got a semi-degraded array now an then.

Please don't go to personal attacks when YOU are obviously the one with no clue.

Things I like about Safari 4:
-> Finally out of Beta (I was beginning to think whether the Google Beta bug had caught on with Apple)
-> Looks more polished, more professional (if I may say that)
-> Tabs can be dragged around
->The new automatically appearing/disappearing loading indicator
-> Faster

Things I do not like about Safari 4:
-> Takes longer to start than the Beat version (but still quicker than Firefox 3.5 Preview)
-> I want the tabs on top (had gotten used to it in the Beta version)
-> Lacks the glossy/shiny look of Beta version (the final version looks more like 'matte')
-> I can see shadows of the stuff added in the Bookmarks Bar

Things I would love to see in future Safari:
-> No tab bar! Instead, do something like this: Designate a special area or a special button or a special key that can be used to view all open tabs. Something like the Top Sites feature. But it should be a translucent 'floating' Top Sites kinda thing. Once we click on the tab we want to view, the floating thing disappears.
-> Skins please! Or at least themes. Sometimes, my eyes get bored of the grey world!

Just launched safari and noticed they'd moved the tabs again. Backwards step IMO. I preferred the 'tabs up top', maybe I was in the minority? How about just giving us the option to choose!

I liked the idea of tabs on top but in practice whenever I tried to move a tab I always forgot to drag the top-right corner of the tab and so ended up moving the whole window, for this reason I didn't find the experience intuitive. It's a shame to lose the space but I find it easier to use the tabs on the bottom.

I am really glad that you can finally add sites to your top sites and they've got rid of that horrid blue highlight. Much improved from the Beta.

Sometimes, Apple drops an advertised feature when it is discovered that it simply isn't ready for mainstream users yet, as was the case with Time Machine backups to AirPort.

And if you believe that one, I've got a bridge to sell you. It's in Alaska, it goes no where, and it doesn't exist. Apple pulled Time Machine backups to AirPort because it realized it, only in retrospect, that it had a viable new product and revenue stream. In short, they ripped off all those people who purchased upgraded Airport Extremes in anticipation of that particular advertised feature being included in Leopard, only to turn around and try to charge them double for a Time Capsule eight months later. It's one of the sleaziest things Apple has ever done. Apple claims that AirPort backup is still possible, by using Finder mounted Air Disks, but that "feature" can't be automated, defeating one of the primary points of Time Machine, and it is still sufficiently unstable as to be classifiable as a fools errand to try to implement.

Maybe Apple didn't want to look like it was copying Google Chrome, and also because it didn't quite fit in with the overall UI (no other program uses it).

It looks like how Opera did it long before there was a Google Chrome. That's one reason why I didn't use Opera, I didn't like how the tabs were done. The user interface can be rearranged, it was too irritating and time consuming to do it.

As for the question of why would anyone need ZFS on a laptop -- since they only have a single disk -- one might ask a better question... Why, at this point in the game, are laptop still operating with only a single disk? Laptops are mobile and therefore more subject to stress and abuse -- and therefore more likely to fail -- all reasons for storage redundancy. Certainly in small, low-end laptops, space and battery life are issues, but in professional products, especially large ones like the 17-inch MacBook Pro, why aren't their two drives that can either be used separately, or as a RAID system? Traveling professionals would have use for this. Business executives would have use for this. And with battery changes now approaching 7-hours, even average people could afford to run two disks has a simple way of ensuring data integrity. Replace those two disks with two solid state drives and the system becomes even more stable and more energy efficient.

The question isn't why do we need ZFS on a laptop; the question should be why don't we need ZFS on a laptop yet?

As for the question of why would anyone need ZFS on a laptop -- since they only have a single disk -- one might ask a better question... Why, at this point in the game, are laptop still operating with only a single disk? Laptops are mobile and therefore more subject to stress and abuse -- and therefore more likely to fail -- all reasons for storage redundancy. Certainly in small, low-end laptops, space and battery life are issues, but in professional products, especially large ones like the 17-inch MacBook Pro, why aren't their two drives that can either be used separately, or as a RAID system? Traveling professionals would have use for this. Business executives would have use for this. And with battery changes now approaching 7-hours, even average people could afford to run two disks has a simple way of ensuring data integrity. Replace those two disks with two solid state drives and the system becomes even more stable and more energy efficient.

The question isn't why do we need ZFS on a laptop; the question should be why don't we need ZFS on a laptop yet?

I've had several mobile computers and not one had a drive failure that caught me off guard. But if that's a major concern for some and I won't dispute that it is, then two drives in a Raid configuration has been available for a long time. It's not like ZFS is going to finally enable that feature. It's far more likely that you'll have your laptop stolen than you lose data generated since your last backup.

I can only assume ZFS is not ready for prime time on OS X and there could be a whole host of reasons for that. Let's remember, it has to be implemented in a far more user-friendly and fool-proof fashion than the average Solaris user might require. It's great if ZFS can provide greater data integrity but if there's anything half-baked about it on OS X then it could achieve just the opposite for some unlucky adopters.

As for the question of why would anyone need ZFS on a laptop -- since they only have a single disk -- one might ask a better question... Why, at this point in the game, are laptop still operating with only a single disk? Laptops are mobile and therefore more subject to stress and abuse -- and therefore more likely to fail -- all reasons for storage redundancy. Certainly in small, low-end laptops, space and battery life are issues, but in professional products, especially large ones like the 17-inch MacBook Pro, why aren't their two drives that can either be used separately, or as a RAID system? Traveling professionals would have use for this. Business executives would have use for this. And with battery changes now approaching 7-hours, even average people could afford to run two disks has a simple way of ensuring data integrity. Replace those two disks with two solid state drives and the system becomes even more stable and more energy efficient.

The question isn't why do we need ZFS on a laptop; the question should be why don't we need ZFS on a laptop yet?

I don't understand why ZFS and personal computers are being conflated.

Article summary:
"while all mention of full ZFS support in Snow Leopard Server has been scrubbed."

Article:
", there's no desperate, impending need to replace HFS+ nor any likelihood that ZFS would really offer consumers, who make up the vast majority Apple's target market, any tangible benefits".

True, but how often does a commercial server OS get installed on a consumer computer? It wasn't going to be put into the standard edition of OS X any time soon that I recall, that was kind of a throwaway line.

As to consumer systems, a daily or weekly backup is probably plenty, though I think being able to wind back a file change might be good, it seems like it should be possible with a single drive computer, without having to go back home to the backup drive.

True, but how often does a commercial server OS get installed on a consumer computer? It wasn't going to be put into the standard edition of OS X any time soon that I recall, that was kind of a throwaway line.

I think the reason that moving the tabs is getting such a backlash is because it was a feature that was actually released to the public, people used it and some really liked it, now it is being taken away after having the feature. If apple isn't sure if they are going to keep a feature, they shouldn't release it in a public beta, and should instead keep it to more limited releases.

I wish I had known about this sooner, I wouldn't have "upgraded".

Quote:

Originally Posted by foljs

<b>Taking away the Safari tabs on top is a huge loss to many consumers.</b>

Reallly? How?

I don't know if anyone here actually said "huge", but I'm not happy about losing the screen real estate. That is a concern to me regardless of how big my monitor is.

You are putting words in his mouth. he didn't say "Who the hell wants ZFS on a laptop" etc.

And in fact lots of people might.

I wasn't responding to you.

Laptops with ZFS with their form factor is asinine unless someone comes up with a 1TB quarter size SSD and then decides to put them in a chipcard of 4 that can be connected via some mini pci express internal slot.

Having pools for your servers/workstations with SSL/SSH/ remote connection to mount those volumes and thus do your work over Wifi, ethernet via the laptop where all the work remains securely on the server/workstation seems to be the most rational approach for ZFS on OS X.

If and when laptops become portable pool units you wouldn't expect Apple to dump a bunch of resources into thinking in such terms.

One thing that's worth keeping in mind...The path to interface hell is paved with optional features.

Think about it... The worst programs that you've ever used are probably feature rich and infinitely configurable. Not that configuration is bad. But rather making everything configurable is basically giving up on designing an optimal interface. Can't come up with something that works well? Just make it configurable instead.

This leads to splintering of the user base. No longer is it possible to sit down at any machine and be at home. It also leads to a maintenance nightmare. Tons more code to support and each configuration interacts with every other configuration differently. This is part of the problem that MS has in improving their software. Every program is used in so many different ways that development and debugging is much more difficult.

Yes, the path to interface hell is paved with optional features. The real solution is to do the work up front. Give the users an optimal interface and it won't need so much customization.

Loved tabs on top. That half an inch of website real estate gained was definitely worth moving the mouse an extra millimeter. Tabs on top worked perfectly for me, in fact imho, it was the best innovation in the Beta. We should at least be given the option.